Bush Endorsement

Bush has proclaimed next week as National Marriage Protection Week in concert with 21 religious right organizations. This makes me sick to my stomach. I am actually a registered Republican and I voted for Bush in the last election, so I feel stupid as well. I just gave $100 to the Dean campaign and I'll be switching my party affiliation either to Democrat or Independent. I clung to bush because I thought he would be better for the country's economy, but I was wrong. This just puts the last nail in the coffin.

I can't remember, didn't he refuse to make an official proclamation for Pride Month?

republican apologists???
comments???

What is even more galling is the timing, Starts on the day Mathew died ends the day after coming out day.
DC_guy As an active Dean supporter I thank you, and would like to know if you are going to one of our coming out day house parties?

[ October 07, 2003, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: p2insdca ]

I thought National Coming Out Day is set for October 11. Is it really the 17th?

Don't really know anything about the house parties, so I guess right now, I'm not planning on going to one.

I actually posted this under the "Former Denver Bronco Weighs in on Gay Marriage" thread, but it deserves a repeat (at least I think):

I have just written to that gutless a**hole in the White House for declaring next week "Marriage Protection Week."

To quote from the White House's site:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents.

To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages. Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures. Through education and counseling programs, faith-based, community, and government organizations promote healthy marriages and a better quality of life for children. By supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the real kicker is this one:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must support the institution of marriage and help parents build stronger families. And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- unless they're faggots or dykes, of course!

I really have to wonder what Mary Cheney thinks about all this, and how she can still stomach being a part of a political family that is willing to sacrifice her and her relationship to lock-in the bigot vote.

Bush "better on the economy"??? I just don't get this--look at Bush's father, Reagan...the man's plans had disaster written all over them.

Anyways, this is just another hard smack in the teeth to gay GOPers. It's perverse that this man would feel the need to go this far, but hey, he's gotta hold onto that hard-right base.

Maybe he'll also take a little time lecturing his brother Neil, his sister Doro, and lots of whorish GOPers like Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Bob Barr, Tim Hutchinson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger on the sanctity of marriage. But I doubt it.

I think she's in hiding with her daddy.

That's why I followed up that line with "but I was wrong"

Hey DC_Guy if your intrested go to
http://www.blogforamerica.com/ you can get the information there.....

Why do gays vote Republican, and why did any vote for Bush in 2000?

Better for the economy seems disingenuous.

Exactly how was Bush's platform better than Gore's?

And, if initiatives for the economy were the deciding factor, just how extraordinarily awesome were these initiatives that you voted for him based on them DESPITE his record on gay issues in Texas (and the GOP's party platform)?

Surely you wouldn't sell out gays being treated fairly by the highest office in the nation for a few thousand extra in tax returns?

If so, was it worth it? A f**ked economy, the President mouthing off about how we unfit to marry, unfit to raise children, hell, unequal in anything that matters. And this in 2003!

Frankly, I think a lot of gays who voted Bush and are Republicans vote that way--despite the overwhelming evidence that gays are hated by that party--because of emotional reasons.

It may have nothing to do with economic initiatives. Or foreign policy. I would bet money that they barely do any research to see which party has better initiatives.

It may have to do with voting for a rich, white Daddy. And not casting your vote with the, you know, liberal, pinko brown-loving, earthy Democrat types.

As in: "Hey, I may be gay, but I'm still male and white dammit, and I want in with the big boys." Even if they shit on you in the process.

You would think the Support of Marriage week crap would be wake up time for some of these lunkheads, but I suspect not. DC_guy excepted.

Or is it something else?

Maybe it has something to do with him looking like Bear from that 70s tv show "BJ and the Bear".

I am waiting for the LCR response.....
I think it will be be
"We commend Mr. Bush for being a man who sticks to his convictions such as all gays are good people as long as they do not want to be considered equal in anyway."

DC Guy, you've already admitted you were wrong (stupid) to vote for W., so I won't pile on. But to answer your question...HELL YES he refused to sign a Pride Month Proclamation. He didn't think it was right to "politicize" sexual orientation. The fact that you had to ask that question about someone you admit voting for does have me a little worried.

WAKE THE f**k UP gay republicans (who are awfully quiet on this thread BTW), the anti-gay mantra is the name of the game for the GOP right now to win 2004 elections.

[ October 07, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

For those interested, "National Marriage Discrimination Week" is brought to you by the following:
American Association of Christian Schools
American Cause
American Family Association
American Values
Bott Broadcasting
Christian Coalition
Citizens for Community Values
Concerned Women for American
Eagle Forum
Faith2Action
Family Research Council
Focus on the Family
Free Congress Foundation
Gideon Christian Fellowship Church
Home School Legal Defense Association
INSP TV Network
National Religious Broadcasters
Prison Fellowship
Prison Fellowship/Wilberforce Forum
Religious Freedom Coalition
Southern Baptist Convention
Thomas Road Baptist Church
World Magazine

[ October 07, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: beachjock73 ]

Hey TomFord, welcome to the Board!
Your post here might be the most passionate first post I've seen on these boards yet!

But of course signing on to the "Marriage Protection Week" is politicizing sexual orientation - it means explicitly arguing that straight is better than gay and only straight couples deserve society's recognition and support.

And just what is the harm we are bringing to marriage/society anyway? Not ONE person in the anti-gay camp, including both religious and political leaders, has been able to provide even ONE concrete instance of how gay marriage will harm straight marriage or the overall society. After all, the gay marriages are happening whether or not society wants to recognize them, and whether or not there is legal recognition, wouldn't the harm be happening anyway? How is legal recognition a problem, unless you want to maintain the fiction of heterosexual superiority?

The reality is, no one is talking about forcing any church to recognize a gay marriage, or even for any individual to recognize gay marriage. What we want is the government to recognize our marriages as equal to straight marriages. No one's belief system will be forced to change, although they may be forced to confront the inconsistencies in their own religious belief systems. No Catholic person out there is forced to accept a remarriage after divorce as "valid" - they are entitled to their opinion. But the government cannot and should not be putting their religious opinion into law.

DC_guy, my aim wasn't to pile on, just to let you know.

BTW, I heard Molly Ivins (is she a dyke?) on Terri Gross's "Fresh Air," and she pointed out that when W took office in Texas, he inherited a surplus, but he proceeded to cut taxes especially for the upper incomes there, based on faulty revenue projections, and succeeded in leaving the state with a deficit. As we all know, while Texas isn't in the financial straits of California, Colorado and some other states, it still has struggled on since W left. Why didn't the media focus more on this aspect of his past?

Back to the topic, yes, homos are in the crosshairs. The VILLAGE VOICE featured an article about how the GOP is going after black voters based on the anti-gay marriage platform. Their problem is, however, that the majority of black American voters were strongly against the war, are against W's economic program (which, surprise surprise! have disproportionately affected black Americans, especially young black males--the ones not in jail, that is), believe the GOP is anti-affirmative action (I wonder why?), and just in general the wrong choice. So we'll see how far this anti-gay ruse goes. Not far, I think, especially if Clark, Edwards, Graham, or even Kerry is one of the P/VP candidates.

[ October 07, 2003, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Having suffered through the 2000 campaign and election debacle and now having suffered through the recall mess here in California, I really have to vent. Although Arnold is thankfully a bit more progressive than Bush on social issues, he (like Bush) ran a "stealth" campaign - the less people know about hi, his positions or his convictions (if any), the better. Both refused to participate in debates and Arnold even promised us more information on the recent sexual harassment allegations -- AFTER the election. (Thanks, Arnold!) Where are all the Republicans who were screaming about Clinton's immorality? They're at the voting booth casting a ballot for the Terminator, of course! I just don't understand how anyone could possibly vote for someone who does not even have the balls to stand up with the other candidates for office and discuss their beliefs, policies and plans for action (other than in a debate where the questions were arranged beforehand)? The person we're electing will lead our state, NOT read lines from a script. He's done a great job of pointing out the problems with our state government, but he's never once outlined a plan to fix those problems. He has, however, accused Davis of running a negative campaign. Simply amazing.

With Bush, he's gone back on many of his campaign positions/promises, and now attempts to quietly and facilely justify his change in position on 9/11, cloaking himself in patriotism and hoping we Americans will be so blinded by the stars/stripes that we won't notice his deceit. Just how far can he ride that unfortunate event before the American people start calling him on his BS?

He led the country to war based on (at best) bad information and/or (at worst) outright lies regarding the threat Iraq posed with little plan for the required rebuilding efforts that would follow the certain victory. Our soldiers are now getting picked off in Iraq at the rate of 3-5 a week attempting to restore order to people who were supposed to be thrilled by their liberation. During the run-up to the war, he summarily dismissed bilateralism and the United Nations and ignored international and domestic opinion against him and his policies. He is now going back to the UN and to Congress, hat in hand seeking assistance because of his poor planning and yet has the gall to attmept to dictate the terms on which he receives that assistance.

He has jailed a terrorist on 9/11 related charges and has attempted to deny that defendant the right to a fair trial by denying him access to witnesses he claims can exonerate him. His government then paints the judge standing in his way as unpatriotic and un-American when her rulings -- in an attempt to give even an avowed terrorist a fair trial -- are the most patriotic and American acts since 9/11.

Most astonishingly, he has put forth a doctrine of such conceit that it could only be known as the Bush Doctrine, claiming that we will now take pre-emptive action against any nation that we, in our sole discretion, deem to be a threat to our national security. If the test case for this Doctrine is Iraq, you can understand why the rest of the world is appalled and frightened and views Bush and the US -- not Osama, Saddam or any terrorist group -- as the biggest threat to world peace and security. In 2 short years, Bush has set this country back more than a century. He must NOT, under any circumstances, be re-elected and given more of an opportunity to destroy everything this country and our forefathers worked so hard to bring about.

Our country is a great, wealthy and powerful nation which was founded on ideals that still serve as a beacon to others. Our country is, at least in part if not in whole, wealthy and powerful because of these ideals. And it is precisely those ideals that are being sacrificed now (Patriot Act anyone? Moussaoui trial anyone?)in the name of fighting an enemy that does not want us to remain wealthy and powerful. In doing so, Bush is handing a victory to those "evil doers" on a silver platter.

That Clinton was impeached for his sexual relationship with an intern while Bush is not being called to task at all for the setbacks he is causing this great nation is a contradiction that I can't quite comprehend. Please -- PLEASE -- this administration must not be allowed to continue its work in destroying whatever credibility, integrity and honor this country built up during its history. Bush MUST be defeated in 2004.

Thanks B Man.

Re: Protection of Marriage Week: All this quibble talk about, "they're just doing this for the bigot vote" is annoying. Homophobes don't cut it so fine.

They simply see the President going on record that gays are unfit to marry, unfit to raise children, fundamentally unfit. And announcing a celebratory week of this no less! Talk about legitimizing anti-gay acts and attitudes.

Homophobes will extend the thought to: gays are perverse, pedophiles, not fit to teach in our schools, not wanted in our neighborhoods, no boy scouts out, etc.

And you can't blame them. It's a logical extension of the precepts that are at the core of the Defense of Marriage Act/Week. Gays are unfit, period. Straights are superior. And nothing to follow saying, 'uh, but that doesn't mean you can't beat the shit out of them, you hear?'

Weird, then, that there would be gays who supported and support Bush. And odder that some claim they didn't see it coming.

Given his record in Texas and given the groups the GOP has been made up of for decades now, you'd have to have had your head buried pretty deep in the sand not to know that this was inevitable. [delete quip about how that can be a comfortable position for some.]

To quote p2insdca:

Where oh were have the right wingers gone, where oh where could they be?

Easy there, cougar

1) I never called myself "stupid". I didn't look much into W's record on gay issues mainly because I was just out of the closet and had no gay friends to speak of. While I knew I was gay, I really didn't let it run my political beliefs.

2) I don't really know why I phrased the Pride month thing as a question. As a federal employee, our gay organization at work had to beg for the right to even use a conference room for our Pride Month celebration, and they actually disbanded the LGBT subcommittee during Pride Month.

I certainly would have not posted this if I had known I was putting myself out there to be criticized. I enjoy this board, but I don't care enough about it to argue.

DC, sorry I misunderstood your statement.

Forgive me?

posted by fantomas:


To be fair, if I were a gay Bush supporter, I don't know that I would want to jump on the board and even attempt to defend this action. No matter what spin the LCR eventually tries with this one, any gay Republican has to be at least somewhat, if not completely, disillusioned. And that, quite frankly, is not a good feeling. Although I personally cannot fathom why anyone who was gay would support a party that is clearly against us, I don't doubt the convictions of most of the gay Republicans I have met - don't agree with them, but can respect them.

I remember when the whole Monica thing broke in the summer of '98 and I was absolutely appalled. I said then that Clinton should resign just for being so damn tacky. Although I supported him politically afterward, the episode and his actions permanently colored by assessment of his character - pretty good President, pretty horrible human being.

And that was just for a little diddling in the White House - were Clinton to have turned his back on gay people so completely (DOMA came pretty close), it would have been far worse than the Monica thing.

We can only hope this will backfire, and perhaps swing a few more of the moderates toward the gay rights side - a USAToday/CNN/Gallup poll out today showed 50% believing legal gay unions would not make the country worse, and could improve it, versus 49% that said it would make the country worse - so that is some good news

Advocate.com report

The marriage "protectors" are going to have to convince a lot of people that gay unions are a real threat in order to achieve any chance at the amendment, so far the poll numbers don't show them having a chance.

Besides - People magazine ran a story on Melissa Etheridge's wedding (including her bride's decision to take Melissa's name) like it was nothing - I don't know how much more mainstream the idea of gay marriage can get.

It's horrible, but it's also a "wedge issue". With Afganistan turning sour, troubles in Iraq, the CIA leak, the economy... Bush needs to distract people, and what better than to unite all the right-wing behind him in a huge distractions like this?

THIS is "The Number One Issue" for the 2004 election?

Come out, support the opposition, write to your senator!
Nat

Just wanted to give this a *bump* and see if anyone has really seen a lot of mainstream media coverage of this "event." I have not, so hopefully it will not be as successful as the anti-gay zealots would like.

I am amazed and appalled, though, at the rhetoric being used by the anti-gay zealots, which is rarely, if ever, questioned by the media when they are interviewed. Agape Press, which seems to be a cornerstone of the "pro-family" movement, has an article today that states:

This \"gay marriage equals the end of civilization\" is not likely to have much of an effect outside of religious communities that believe this tripe, but what kind of effect will it have there? I have to believe that those who are inclined to do violence against gays and lesbians, particularly for religious reasons, will only be emboldened if they believe gays and lesbians are out to destroty civilization

And then there's this, from a former Congressman no less!:

So an entire leg of our Constitutional system of law is suddenly flawed because judges believe gays are human beings? Does the former Congressman believe we should entirely scrap our system of government?

And for anyone who believes the \"pro-family\" facists will stop at only \"marriage\" but allow civil unions, I think this says it all:

Apparently it was only newsworthy to the religious right and the gay press. A Google News search shows that mainstream coverage was nearly nil, with the exception of Fox News, and theirs a fairly balanced piece.

I was reading in a gay magazine from Australia called DNA in the July 2003 issue that the Human Rights Commission which is attached to the United Nations attempted to aid sexual orientation to its mandate in order to protect gays and lesbians from discrmination..But among others it was opposed by the United States..Bush strikes again!

At least one mainstream newspaper is covering the gay marriage issue, but in a much more supportive way - I guess the NY Times is not that concerned about the dreaded "liberal media" label.

Don't know if this case will succeed, but it is nice to see at least one big paper highlighting the inequity of marriage laws in this country.

New York Times Article

I was at a pro-gay marriage event just the other night. Nearly two dozen clery attended and spoke for close to an hour (no joke) about why New Jersey and the US SHOULD allow gay marriage.

One minister talked about his experience over the years working with grieving partners who shut out at the hospital. Hospital visitation rights are a HUGE issue in all of this, and to see ministers, rabbis, and other clergy talk from their experience about it...well, it was very powerful.

A compelling passage from one of Lambda Legal's handouts at the event:

Happy Marriage Protection Week to Log Cabin, PhillyFan and all the other "true American patriots" on Outsports!!

MERRY M WEEK! TO ALL THE COMMIE-PINKO-LIBS!

RAZE, P2, HORN, FANTOM, AND TWIN!

paid for by the... clinton signed DOMA fund!

I'm very frustrated that the LCR didn't even respond to this on its web site.

The only LCR interview I've found said that Bush did the perfect thing by saying he'll protect marriage but not espousing the FMA. I think that's about the weakest spin I've seen in a while.

Damn, I'm disappointed I wasn't included on this list!

DC, you must be a young whipper-snapper! The LCR is not interested in any progress on gay ISSUES. They are all about their own wallet and keeping our closet doors tightly shut. I'm afraid you have a lot of frustration and disappointments in your future if you continue to look to the LCR as leaders in the gay community.

Get back with me if they ever come out of the closet and change their name to the Gay and Lesbian Republicans.

Why thank you. Only Commies aren't libs. I know it's hard for you to wrap your SCREAMING ALL CAPS WHICH ARE EXTREMELY RUDE around, but one can't one and the other. No matter how often you say it.

Have a good anti-gay-marriage week yourself, paid for by ANTI-HOMO-GOP-THUG-LIARS!

Clinton thanks your for helping support his cementing of the doma legislation, the most anti gay legislation passed by any president, ever... oh and dont ask dont tell also. PORK CHOPS FOR ALL in celebration!

paid for by Dean, i'm against gay marriage, VT gov.

Sorry man, way too many commie-libs around to list them on.. I just had to pick a few of my favorites.

Thanks PF, Im glad to see Im on top of your "favorites" list.

You are my favorite closet liberal, sometime right wing-nut! This is your week, enjoy!!

Oh yeah, and have a great anti-gay week, Philly, you can even buttbang in W's home state of Texas now, only not with your hubby--you could do this with a civilly recognized partner in Dean's Vermont--or your domestic partner in Hill and Bill's New York!

But then, you don't have one do you? There's always liberal Canada, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands for you to visit to hitch up with a hot beau! Just regulate that fire-breathing anti-commo-pinko-lib crap over there. I think someone'll take you on and turn you out! I'm sure you'd be a LOT nicer with some Eurobooty on a regular basis. Have bun!

[ October 16, 2003, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

wow, fantom that was pretty good there... very impressed....

By saying NY for billybo and skanky-ho.. you mean the state they carpet bagged to...trying to get the white house back?...oops and the senate... ummm, and the house...

Actually, if you notice.. since the repugs have had control.. we havent had any anti-gay legislation lately.. like doma... dont ask dont tell... hmmmm

PhillyFan You are an "intolerant bigot."

That is according to Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman.

Actually, since your hero is the face of marriage protection (DONA)... this is really a celebration of the GREAT legislation passed by the most anti-gay president ever....

Happy Hick week to all! especially your Raze!

Maybe there should be a pic-nic to celebrate, i'll brings forks and potato salad... you?

I dont know what "DONA" is.
Your not thinking "straight" PhillyFan, have you been getting into Rush's pills?

blah blah blah... pork chops....blah blah blah...pills... blah blah blah...

Although I really do not think the best way to react to the gravest threat to our civil liberties since Anita Bryant is to cat fight among ourselves, let me point out that the Religious Right has made it clear - DOMA ain't good enough. Clinton and Congress pandered to them by passing a law most of them thought would be ruled unConstitutional, and they know it.

No they want the amendment because neither DOMA nor the various state DOMAs can prevent the evil-ness of civil unions and domestic partnerships. No matter what some legal scholars argue (and I am not questioning the validity of MIB's and other's interpretation of the amendment wording), the "pro-family" movement believes they can use the FMA to nullify the VT civil union law, CAs domestic partner law and every other similar type law in the country.

This is not about which leader has done worse to the gay community (and given the rising rate of AIDS among young people who are being lied to in their "abstinence education" programs, I would say the anti-gay mantle is up for grabs) it is about the potential damage, and the length of time it will take to repair that damage, if this damn amendment gets any steam.

And when the Republicans make it part of their party platform next year, it will get some steam.

Even if the amendment fails to pass, the "pro-family" movement is enjoying a wonderful opportunity to spread even more lies and slander about gay and lesbian Americans - arguing that we are incapable of marriage, that we really want to destroy marriage, and that we will, if allowed marriage, destroy the very foundations of society.

They do not say that if Democratic gays and lesbians get the right to be married society will be destroyed, they argue that society is at risk if any gays and lesbians get married.

Yes this argument can be refuted, but it sure as hell can do a lot of damage in the process. This is an attack on all of us, and we should be able to agree on at least that.

I would also expect any gay and lesbian person, whatever their other political positions, would be able to agree that a major party's decision, and that party's President's decision, to embrace, however delicately, this kind of attack is more than worrisome.

I could care less about anyone's position on taxes - this is about our civil rights.

CPT_Doom, HEAR HEAR!

You've articulated the nub of the matter. It's going to require involvement at every level to counteract the forces being rallied against gay equality in the United States. Does large-scale scapegoating sound familiar? Scary indeed, but we know for sure that passivity is not the answer.

I realize this week is over, but thought this was the best place to note the Massachusetts Catholic Church's seeming "give" on gay marriage:

First, I don't believe a church should ever have a role in crafting legislation, but that's just me, I understand the power of the RCC in Mass. But I do find it interesting that the Church apparently believes it needs to counter some bad publicity. I can see no other reason for their apparent willingness to compromise - without actually agreeing that gay people are equal, of course.

I don't really see this as any change in the church's stance, but for some reason they seem to feel they need to appear more flexible on the issue.

With any luck, this will be the beginning of the end of the church's ability to block all efforts at equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Boston Globe 10/24/03

I rarely post and would just like to say that with the exception of the DOMA rants this thread has been an interesting read. I am impressed at how well most of the people here have put the issue into words. I think that the GOP is using this issue to cover up for their failings on most other issues. The GOP seems to specialize in demonizing others - the evil gays, unpatriotic, communist liberals, unAmerican, etc.

The hands-down award winner for "best video" for Marriage Protection Week just has to be that taken at the birthday bash thrown by Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski for his lovely new bride on the island of Sardinia two years ago. It cost a mere $2 million, paid for by Tyco and hence Tyco's shareholders, of which I am one.

It was on all the networks tonight. I so hope that it enters the public domain after the trial is over. The version seen by the jurors was edited to omit the anatomically correct statue of David, with champagne pouring from his penis.